The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 16, intensified its scrutiny of the anti-conversion laws enacted by several Indian states, raising critical questions about their constitutional validity and the criteria for determining the nature of inter-faith marriages.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran heard a batch of petitions challenging the laws passed by 10 states, including Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Haryana.
The lead petition, filed in 2020 by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), argued that the anti-conversion bills were rooted in a “baseless rhetoric” termed “love jihad.”
During proceedings, advocate and petitioner-in-person Ashwini Upadhyay contended that his application aimed to ban “wrongful and deceitful” religious conversions.
In response, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai asked, “Who will find out as to whether it is deceitful or not?”, reported Supreme Court Observer.
Senior advocate P. Wilson remarked that Upadhyay’s demand fell within the legislative domain and was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Following this, the bench detagged Upadhyay’s petition.
Senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing another petitioner challenging the laws, argued that these statutes, although framed as Freedom of Religion Acts, were in reality “anything but that.”
He submitted, “The batch of laws are characterised as Freedom of Religion Acts, but they contain everything but freedom. They are virtually anti-conversion laws.”
Singh further sought a stay on the laws, highlighting that their enforcement was becoming increasingly harsh as courts granted bail and relief to those accused and arrested under them.
He pointed out that the bail conditions resembled the stringent measures of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and that the burden of proof unfairly rested on the convert to establish that they were neither coerced nor “allured” to change faith.
Meanwhile, several senior counsels, including Indira Jaising and Vrinda Grover, urged the bench to admit their interlocutory applications challenging amendments made to the laws since 2020.
The Supreme Court allowed these applications and directed additional solicitor general K.M. Nataraj, representing the states, to file replies within four weeks.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran heard a batch of petitions challenging the laws passed by 10 states, including Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Haryana.
The lead petition, filed in 2020 by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), argued that the anti-conversion bills were rooted in a “baseless rhetoric” termed “love jihad.”
During proceedings, advocate and petitioner-in-person Ashwini Upadhyay contended that his application aimed to ban “wrongful and deceitful” religious conversions.
In response, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai asked, “Who will find out as to whether it is deceitful or not?”, reported Supreme Court Observer.
Senior advocate P. Wilson remarked that Upadhyay’s demand fell within the legislative domain and was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Following this, the bench detagged Upadhyay’s petition.
Senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing another petitioner challenging the laws, argued that these statutes, although framed as Freedom of Religion Acts, were in reality “anything but that.”
He submitted, “The batch of laws are characterised as Freedom of Religion Acts, but they contain everything but freedom. They are virtually anti-conversion laws.”
Singh further sought a stay on the laws, highlighting that their enforcement was becoming increasingly harsh as courts granted bail and relief to those accused and arrested under them.
He pointed out that the bail conditions resembled the stringent measures of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and that the burden of proof unfairly rested on the convert to establish that they were neither coerced nor “allured” to change faith.
Meanwhile, several senior counsels, including Indira Jaising and Vrinda Grover, urged the bench to admit their interlocutory applications challenging amendments made to the laws since 2020.
The Supreme Court allowed these applications and directed additional solicitor general K.M. Nataraj, representing the states, to file replies within four weeks.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment